Faking waves: How the NRA and pro-gun Americans abuse Australian crime stats

Jan 22, 2013 by Dr. Michael Brown

An American protesting the easy availability of military style weapons in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. Credit: EPA/Michael Reynolds

The Sandy Hook massacre and President Obama's response to it has refocused attention on impact of regulation on American gun crime. Crime statistics before and after the implementation of gun laws provide a quantifiable measure of their impact. As a consequence, Australia's gun laws and their impact have become part of the American gun debate.

In the wake of the Port Arthur massacre and Monash University shootings, the conservative government of John Howard introduced a series of gun laws. These restricted who could own guns and the type of guns they could own.

Remarkably, American pro-gun advocates try to use the impact of the Australian gun law reform to make a case that reform "doesn't work". This seems amazing given the homicide rate in the United States is 5 per 100,000 people, with most homicides involving firearms.

When gun advocates use Australian crime stats, they sometimes employ a number of misleading tricks and sleights of hand. These tricks are common to several politically charged debates, and are a form of pseudo-science. Lets look at these tricks in action.

Cherry picking

The selective use of data, or cherry picking, is a commonly used method of extracting the "right" answer. This is true even when all the data tells a completely different story.

Cherry picking often exploits random fluctuations in data. Firearm deaths in Australia have declined over the past two decades, but from year-to-year one can see variations up and down. Bigger fractional fluctuations are likely if you shrink your sample size.

Leading US pro-gun lobby group, the National Rifle Association (NRA) was cherry picking when it's publication, NRA News reported this statistic from New South Wales:

"In the inner west, robberies committed with firearms skyrocketed more than 70% over the previous year, figures show."

Rather than giving the national trend over many years, the NRA chose one part, of one city, in one state and just two years of data. The NRA's use of stats is misleading. Around Australia, robberies using firearms have declined from over 1500 per year in the 1990s to 1100 per year.

Look over there!

When the most relevant statistics give the "wrong" answer, advocates often switch to less relevant statistics that give the "right" answer.

"In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults."

The implication is gun control has increased assaults and sexual assaults. This is completely misleading.

Firearm use is almost completely irrelevant to assault and sexual assault in Australia, and cannot be driving changes in these crimes. Suggesting otherwise is deceptive.

Logical fallacy

Logical fallacies are very common in charged political debates.

Homicide rates in both Australia and the US have varied for a number of reasons. Since the decline in the US occurred without effective gun controls, does this mean gun control is ineffective? No.

While some gun laws may be ineffective (e.g., laws with grandfather clauses), it is wrong to conclude that all gun laws are ineffective. That's like saying that because some cars are slow Datsuns, there cannot possibly be fast Ferraris.

Of course, this logical fallacy also ignores a gorilla in the room. Firearm deaths per capita in Australia are tiny compared to US firearm deaths per capita.

Making it up

If all else fails, there is a remarkably simple solution. Just make up some numbers. Over 300,000 people have recently viewed copies of an NRA tabloid infomercial which claims

"[Australian] gun murders increased 19%."

This is just plain wrong.

However, inventing numbers is a remarkably effective approach, and isn't limited to the Internet. If you lie, how many people will check your numbers? If the lie is caught, how will that be communicated to your audience?

So what is the reality? Homicide and suicide rates have declined in Australia since the 1990s. Deaths results from firearms have plunged even more dramatically. In Australia, mass shootings similar to Port Arthur, Hoddle Street and Strathfield have not occurred for over a decade.

Is this the result of the gun laws introduced by the Howard government? While some (particularly gun advocates) dispute their impact, several studies conclude the laws have made a difference.

Claims that Australian gun laws have increased crime are pure spin and deception. They say more about American partisan politics than about the reality in Australia.

Related Stories

Every state in America legislates its own gun laws, but not without significant spillover effects on nearby states, according to a new study by Brown University economist Brian Knight. In a National Bureau of Economic Research ...

Sixty percent of persons incarcerated for gun crimes in the thirteen U.S. states with the most lax standards for legal firearm ownership were not legally prohibited from possessing firearms when they committed the crime that ...

George Nation, professor of law and business at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., argues in the April issue of the Baylor Law Review that manufacturers of guns should be required to bear vicarious financial liability for ...

Despite the fact that nearly one-third of American households have a firearm, studies show that having a gun in the home poses a household a greater health risk than a potential benefit. A new study released in the American Jo ...

Recommended for you

Why does time seem to crawl if you're waiting in line at the post office, but hours can fly by in minutes when you're doing something fun? A new study in the Journal of Consumer Research examines the factors that determine how co ...

Why do some consumers make choices based on their feelings instead of rational assessments? According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, consumers who consider themselves independent are more inclined to rel ...

Why is it so hard for consumers to save money? According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, consumers are often impatient and do not think about the long-term consequences of spending money. ...

How do consumers react to products with diverse online reviews? According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, a mix of positive and negative reviews can benefit products that are evaluated based on person ...

If you're traveling at 60 miles per hour, just a few milliseconds can mean the difference between life and death when you need to come to a quick stop. According to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research, driver ...

User comments : 205

When gun advocates use...statistics, they sometimes employ a number of misleading tricks and sleights of hand. These tricks are common to several politically charged debates, and are a form of pseudo-science. Lets look at these tricks in action. (deletion mine)

Not surprisingly, you could substitute the words "gun advocates" with "climate warming deniers" and the statement would be just as true.

"The implication is gun control has increased assaults and sexual assaults. This is completely misleading.Weapons (including knives) are only used in 13% of assaults and 2% of sexual assaults in Australia. Firearms are rarely the weapon used, and only 0.3% of assaults in New South Wales used firearms.Firearm use is almost completely irrelevant to assault and sexual assault in Australia, and cannot be driving changes in these crimes. Suggesting otherwise is deceptive."

-This totally disregards the FACT that assaults are up because fewer people are able to use firearms to protect themselves. The authors adopt an air of cool objectivity in order to imply that they are a rational voice against fanatic gun owners. This is called 'spin and deception'.

several studies conclude the laws have made a difference.

-While several more studies have concluded just the opposite. This is why the NRA is against 'studies' funded by govt politicians with agendas to defend.

I doubt most gun supporters are consciously guilty of what this article is saying. They certainly engage in this stuff, but they are so conditioned to think in faulty ways on particular issues they can't really be reasoned with. You can't be reasoned out of a position you didn't reason yourself into.

"There has been a horrific shooting in Albuquerque, New Mexico that left five people dead including three young children between 2 and 9 years of age. According to friends who knew him, one of the victim's was Greg Griego, a popular local pastor, who was killed along with his wife Sarah Griego and three other members of his family.

The shooter has now been identified by Sheriff's spokesman Aaron Williamson as 15-year-old Nehemiah Griego, the son of victim Greg Griego. The young man was arrested and booked for two counts of murder and three counts of child abuse resulting in death. All the victims received multiple gunshot wounds."

Can RyggTard tell us how this Pastor's guns protected him from his Son taking those guns and murdering him and the rest of his family?

Why do the US fascists ignore how firearms enable individuals to kill tens of thousands of Americans every year?

Fascism is a sub-species of socialism.The greatest murder rates by fire arms occur in 'liberal' (aka socialist) jurisdictions.At present, Chicago, the great bastion of socialism, is leading the way. DC at one time lead the way but the SCOTUS overturned their ban on firearms and murder rates dropped.

Why do the US fascists ignore how firearms enable individuals to kill tens of thousands of Americans every year?

Moreover most of those Americans were shot in the act of committing a crime. I agree however that post-natal abortions via firearm are less desirable than family planning. Women everywhere need access to free gynecological assistance so as to minimize unwanted pregnancies that grow into future dangers to society

Something I just don't understand how anyone would believe restrictive gun laws would make a society safe and behave in a more civil manner. Lest we forget history, we're doomed to repeat it. Does anyone take into account the atrocities acted upon the (atleast) 100 million people who were murdered, in collective, over the last century? Refresh your memory of the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot, the Ukrainian Genocide, The Great Leap Forward, or even Nazi Germany. All have ties to the people who suffered those atrocities with the lack of the means to self-protection. I'm more apt to siding with the wisdom of our Founders than to follow those who wish to pass any legislation due to an emotional response. Tradegies will happen wit or without gun laws and those who commit oneselves to such depravity must be held responsible for those actions and not the rest of the populace.

follow those who wish to pass any legislation due to an emotional response.

That's the rub. The socialists are exploiting an emotional response. The 'liberal' politicians have publicly stated they have been waiting for a Newtown to exploit.If their weapons bans were so important why did they wait?The socialists understand too well the real reason for the 2nd amendment, to thwart a tyrannical govt. But of course if they made a serious and honest attempt to eliminate the amendment by following the law, they would fail.

Something I just don't understand how anyone would believe restrictive gun laws would make a society safe and behave in a more civil manner.

The only people advocating gun control are the criminal oligarchs who fear retaliation for the thousands of lives they have ordered "suicided" and dissappeared. With the Internet it is easier to piece together their crimes and influence peddling and track the money flow back to Israel and London. They fear citizens taking their natural rights back from the corporfascist state and it's prepaid tinpot leaderships

This article is baseless and has no foundation in science. It's just a paid hitpiece riding the coattails of much more legitimate research.

I predicted such a movement would take place after the Dark Knight shooting and the MSM is right on schedule, like a good lapdog. Al these shooters are doped up on big pharma drugs like Prosaic which warns it causes violent outbursts on the label

Ryggesogn, yet they (gun law advocates) will not stop. That is the main reason for the right to "keep and bear" arms is to fight tyranny; all other reasons are secondary. And for those who believe the Founders wouldn't have anticipated the types of weapons we have today, why else would they have stated "Arms". They were well infromed people who believed in and encouraged advancement.

Claudis, add in the FBI had submitted a report about gun violence for the last 20 years. But one thing to keep in mind, countries vary in attitude and societal responses when it comes to crime. Britain is an example. There is a lower number to crimes compared to the U.S. Some would claim the advent of gun laws. Yet, in the early 1900's, Britain was in the same comparison to the U.S. I suspect there are alot more factors envolved as to why both countires, and others, vary.

A former radio talk show host in Boston noted that most mass shootings are performed by 'loners'.Will the govt try to violate the first amendment's freedom of assembly clause to compel 'loners' to associate?If that part of the first amendment can be wished away, why not the press, speech, ....?

But one thing to keep in mind, countries vary in attitude and societal responses when it comes to crime. Britain is an example. There is a lower number to crimes compared to the U.S.

What complete bollocks! London has MUCH higher crime of every sort. What contrasts to the US is that people have no REMEDIES to prevent crime in London. Homeowners put glass shards on their brick walls hoping the robber will try a neighbor. Pathetic. Also crime is more accepted in England and Europe as a whole. For example if I came at you and beat you so that you lie bleeding on the ground, I could perhaps spend six months in an English prison while in the US I would face twenty years for "assault and battery." Most non-homocide crime in England simply goes unreported as it's more an accepted part of life there.

Yes, I agree. I am abit suprised we don't have an Al Capone-like individual today. The Drug War is prohibition; no if's, and's, or but's. It's more than a war, it's a revenue stream. Look at the henious laws such as property takings in Texas (forgot the name) or along I-40 in Tennessee is big business. That's a moral hazard if I've seen any. Oh and how can we forget, Fast and Furious. Yes, Hmmmm... is the word and not the bird. I don't know much about the Australian gun law situation, but yeah, odd how are those correlations? a double hmmmm...

Well there's a factor to be considered as you stated about how crime is reported. That can distort any set of numbers. But, for me, I should take into account to what's happening with the riots in Europe. Those are still going on, right? I'm basing that statement on what other people to use in comparison with the U.S. Some people use Canada, Sweden, Denmark ect., ect. Now I've never been to Europe to witness it for myself. I won't suscribe a whole country as the root problem, yet if that happens, then those citizens will fall for anything.

"There has been a horrific shooting in Albuquerque, New Mexico that left five people dead including three young children between 2 and 9 years of age

You know VD, I dont want to sound like a conspiracy nut here (well why not?) but can we ask ourselves WHY these events are all happening at this particular moment, early in the last term of a liberal administration with any hope of passing laws based on what are understandably minority viewpoints regarding this issue? Why NOW VD? WHY SO MANY VD?

We do KNOW that it has been possible to elicit this sort of behavior in certain people for at least a generation. Millions were poured into developing the science in a program called MKULTRA.

And what has been accomplished since with video games, digital music, and cell phones? You have got to consider that Events like these would be the ONLY WAY to pass these laws.http://en.wikiped..._MKUltra

I would like to know why the NRA is so vehemently opposed to research concerning gun ownership that they have gotten laws passed prohibiting such studies and have stopped ongoing studies in their tracks?

@sennekuyl Ah, you are wrong kochevnik about advocates being only criminal oligarchs. That spiel just sounds nuts.

More like you're out of the loop. The happy marriage of prozac-gulping lone gunmen simultaneously combined with a UN agenda to control gun ownership worldwide is, of course, PURE COINCIDENCE to a hammerhead

I would like to know why the NRA is so vehemently opposed to research concerning gun ownership that they have gotten laws passed prohibiting such studies and have stopped ongoing studies in their tracks?

What is that about?

What research? What opposition?

John Lott has conducted significant research.

"Now, in his stunning new book, The Bias against Guns, Lott shows how liberals bury pro-gun facts out of sheer bias against the truth."http://www.johnlott.org/Data and references are provided.

I already addressed this. Studies are initiated by committees chaired by politicians with agendas who select institutions who they can count on to produce the results they want.

This is not speculation; it is done all the time. The above article is an egregious example. In another thread I showed how british studies were contradicted by their own police statistics. It happens here and everywhere.

Here are some nice govt charts showing how assaults and other violent crimes have risen in australia since the gun ban. People can no longer defend themselves.http://www.oesr.q...6-97.php

I think what both sides have failed to mention is that there has yet to be shown any significant correlation between rates of gun ownership and crime! Gun advocates are dumb for trying to cherry pick a negative correlation between the two, and gun control advocates are dumb for ignoring the correlation between crime retarded social policies like drug laws, lack of mental health care and etc... Arguing over whether the tools make one a good or bad carpenter makes you a tool.

Student, 16, walked into class late and fired at two classmates with 12-gauge shotgun, critically wounding one and missing the other at Taft (California) Union High School on Thursday morning, police say

Why do the US fascists ignore how firearms enable individuals to kill tens of thousands of Americans every year?

In fact, the greatest murder rate by firearm and other weapons of war are perpetrated by the military upon others for political and financial gain. It has long been known that if you kill one or two people you are a murderer; if you kill thousands you're a patriot.

I failed to bookmark examples for future references such as this, and I have no time at the moment to go look, but here is one quick example:http://www.busine...h-2013-1

There are many others I have seen over the years. It is an ongoing priority of the NRA to "shoot down" efforts to simply get good studies done. I personally am NOT opposed to gun ownership, just the NRA mentality.

@sennekuyl Ah, you are wrong kochevnik about advocates being only criminal oligarchs. That spiel just sounds nuts.

More like you're out of the loop. The happy marriage of prozac-gulping lone gunmen simultaneously combined with a UN agenda to control gun ownership worldwide is, of course, PURE COINCIDENCE to a hammerhead

Ad hominem? I agree my emphasis was too strong, but I was pretty sure you had no more evidence that I have that Cthulhu is rising.

Besides which, it is not a coincidence at all. 1 instigated the other to occur.

I would side with the simpler explanation, your spiel indicated the more complex coordination on a global scale while simplifying ridiculously people's responses to external stimuli. Not a black & white world...

"The two "persons of interest" suspected of fighting each other also were injured, Tello said. Tello did not say how they were injured.

Tello also said one handgun was involved in the incident. When asked whether only one person was armed, Tello said he didn't know. Earlier, a school spokesman had said two gunmen were involved in the incident."

-Funny how preconceptions color an incident. This sounds to me like it could be someone defending himself with a firearm. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

There are many others I have seen over the years. It is an ongoing priority of the NRA to "shoot down" efforts to simply get good studies done. I personally am NOT opposed to gun ownership, just the NRA mentality.

Nope. Their membership doesn't want their tax money to go for politically-motivated studies. No way to prevent this abuse except to resist ALL of them. Otherwise you'd have liberal studies, and conservative counter-studies, and lots of wasted taxpayer money.

When gun advocates use...statistics, they sometimes employ a number of misleading tricks and sleights of hand. These tricks are common to several politically charged debates, and are a form of pseudo-science. Lets look at these tricks in action. (deletion mine)

Not surprisingly, you could substitute the words "gun advocates" with "climate warming deniers" and the statement would be just as true.

You could also add tabacco companies as well. If you look back circa 1970's they were pulling off the same old trick.

" The Gun That Does Not Exist Cannot Be Used To Kill People. The car that does not exist cannot be used kill people. The knife.... The bat.... The match... The fist... The poison... The euthanasia law... The Iranian nuclear weapon...

-But then why should we believe her if the studies concluded that very thing? On closer inspection we find:

"It was mostly political junk science,"...The CDC, he said, started from the premise "that guns were bad, had no benefits, that guns and bullets were pathogens that needed to be eradicated or at least severely restricted from the civilian population."

"...research sponsored by the CDC was one-sided, because it ignored evidence that having a gun can protect people and prevent harm."

"...serious scholars have been criticizing the CDC's "public health" approach to gun research for years...counting only shootings vastly underestimates the use of guns for self-defense, which according to survey data typically involves nothing more than brandishing a weapon to deter an attacker."

" The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association, the main outlets for CDC-funded studies of firearms, are consistent supporters of strict gun control. They found that "reports with findings not supporting the position of the journal are rarely cited," "little is cited from the criminological or sociological field," and the articles that are cited "are almost always by medical or public health researchers.""http://reason.com...th-resea

" The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association, the main outlets for CDC-funded studies of firearms, are consistent supporters of strict gun control. They found that "reports with findings not supporting the position of the journal are rarely cited," "little is cited from the criminological or sociological field," and the articles that are cited "are almost always by medical or public health researchers.""http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/16/the-problem-with-the-public-health-resea" title="http://http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/16/the-problem-with-the-public-health-resea" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://reason.com...th-resea

Just one more example of how 'science' journals need to be truly objective.Unlike what Ehrlich and is disciples have advocated."You cannot object to scientific studies just because they may have potentially deleterious consequences or implications. Scientific conclusions can never be "dangerous" or "offensive"; they can only be true or false. "http://bigthink.c...-scienceresearchers.""http://reason.com/blog/2013/

Any animal with stero vision and an opposable thumb, can point a gun and pull a trigger. Every primate can do it. So why do people feel so amazing when they repeat the actions that a Bonobo can do? Using a weapon and displaying violence are survival traits that go back thousands of years, but they aren't needed to survive in our current and future society. If your displaying violence and using weapons, then your not needed today, or for the future. Your genes WILL succumb to evolution by natural selection, and that is so refreshing to know.

Walk into any retirement home in Italy, state that Fascism and Socialism are basically the same thing, and prepare to find yourself on the receiving end of a geriatric ass-kicking.

It is more correct to say that fascism and socialism are both different forms of collectivism, in which an individual's rights are subordinated to the state. The philosophy that the group is more important than the individual. The kind of philosophy that justifies mass murder to maintain the security of the state.

Walk into any retirement home in Italy, state that Fascism and Socialism are basically the same thing, and prepare to find yourself on the receiving end of a geriatric ass-kicking.

It is more correct to say that fascism and socialism are both different forms of collectivism, in which an individual's rights are subordinated to the state. The philosophy that the group is more important than the individual. The kind of philosophy that engages in mass murder to maintain the security of the state.

Walk into any retirement home in Italy, state that Fascism and Socialism are basically the same thing, and prepare to find yourself on the receiving end of a geriatric ass-kicking.

It is more correct to say that fascism and socialism are both different forms of collectivism, in which an individual's rights are subordinated to the state. The philosophy that the group is more important than the individual. The kind of philosophy that engages in mass murder to maintain the security of the state.

Collectivism IS socialism is 'progressivism' is 'libaralism'.Socialists are quite fond of using language to deflect their true nature of coercion and plunder.

You could also add tabacco companies as well. If you look back circa 1970's they were pulling off the same old trick.

It's amusing when socialists bring up tobacco companies and how evil they were/are.Tobacco funded every empire, nation and state since Europeans discovered it 500 years ago.Tobacco taxes, along with alcohol taxes, are major funding sources for state yet these same states attack those who use it.Tobacco companies were/are state sponsored so why attack the companies when they are supported by govts?The only moral solution for govts is to either ban tobacco and alcohol or end its taxation and decriminalize, NOT legalize and TAX, other currently illegal drugs. Do govts tax or ban bleach?Tobacco companies were created and protected by the state. The fault lies with the greedy govts.

Tobacco binds users to the system like nothing else. They must work to earn enough to buy it. They must vote for the politicians who support continued access to it. They must have health insurance to pay for the lingering diseases it creates. Profits are a small part of the function of this addiction.

Like tabacco, I believe firing a gun has addictive traits where get an adrenalin rush within the brain which creates an euphoria state within the brain. With enough time the brains is trained to crave for the same stimulus leading to addiction.

Frankly, I find it ironic that to "protect" citizens, the government wants to disarm them so they cannot protect themselves while in the meantime criminals don't obey the laws and obtain guns where law abiding citizens cannot. If gun control is so important, then why does government fail so often to stop criminals from obtaining them?

Why do the socialists get so upset about being called socialists? Mises defined socialism quite thoroughly in Socialism, which essentially state control of private property.Socialism is as socialism does. Stalin, Bismark, FDR, Wilson, Mussolini, ...were all socialists of one sort or another.Statism is used to describe socialism as well, but it is still state control of private property, regardless of how the leader or govt of the state is formed.Is that what sticks in the socialist craw, style? Does the bad behavior of other socialists like North Korea or Castro or Hitler offend? Stalin, DPRK, Hitler just carried socialism to its logical end, state tyranny.

Just as a suggestion, all the people here who at least give lip service to the idea of democracy (at least when the vote comes out to their liking) call for a constitutional convention to repeal the 2nd amendment. If you don't think you can get the support for it, or the motion fails then the people have spoken...period.

If you want a different interpretation of the 2nd amendment then let's hear it. If interpreted with "the militia" argument in mind (which is a popular anti-gun interpretation) it would put a fully automatic military grade assault rifle in the hands of every male between the ages of 17 and 45....but they'd be registered :)

Tobacco binds users to the system like nothing else. They must work to earn enough to buy it. They must vote for the politicians who support continued access to it. They must have health insurance to pay for the lingering diseases it creates. Profits are a small part of the function of this addiction.

Like tabacco, I believe firing a gun has addictive traits where get an adrenalin rush within the brain which creates an euphoria state within the brain. With enough time the brains is trained to crave for the same stimulus leading to addiction.

Sorry the best estimates are about 45% or 52 million of American households owning 260 million guns, and few of them practice on a regular basis. If so there would be many many more ranges than there are now.

"Throughout much of the rest of the United States, though, especially in areas where the dominant side of the gun politics debate leans towards gun rights, and where no license is usually required to own a handgun or rifle or shotgun, the typical number of ranges often surpasses one for every 100,000 residents"

Well it killed ayn rand and johnny carson. Maybe slow suffocation is how they wanted to die.

"According to the American Council on Science and Health, 95 percent of all smokers say they would like to quit, 60 percent actually try quitting and 50 percent [of those who try] succeed."

"The American Lung Association reports that approximately 438,000 Americans die every year as a result of diseases related to smoking."

"­It's no wonder that two-thirds of adult smokers who wish they could quit say they aren't able to. It shouldn't be a surprise that only one in 10 smokers can kick the habit. A startling 50 percent of people who have surgery for lung cancer recover and reach for the pack again [source: FDA]."

"Seventy-five to 90 percent of people who suffer from schizophrenia are smokers. Alcoholics aren't far behind at an average of 80 percent. Bipolar disorder comes in at 60 to 70 percent"

The revenue generated by addicts forced to work and vote and suffer for the medical establishment far outweighs the revenue generated from tobacco sales. The drug civilizes people against their will. Money which could be used to buy property goes to feed their disease.

You should be against this ryggy. Addicts have NO choice. This is slavery not freedom.

Percentage of smokers who want to quit altogether - 70%Percentage of smokers who will try to quit this year - 40%Percentage of smokers who will succeed at quitting smoking on their first time - 7%Percentage of people who will quit smoking cold turkey - 3.5%Percent of people who relapse into smoking while intoxicated with alcohol - 50%

Many too many "gun-tards" in the US. Constitutional rights? Bunch of crap. That was written over 200 years ago, and now any civilized society should ban any private possession outright, no questions asked. The US should follow Singapore: death penalty for the mere possession of firearms or munitions.

That was written over 200 years ago, and now any civilized society should ban any private possession outright

Dont you think it would make more sense to ban criminals first and see how that works out? In the meantime I think it would be prudent to retain the only reliable way we have of defending ourselves from them, dont you think?

Perhaps the politicians and judges and celebrities who advocate disarming the american people would be willing to take the first step, and do their business without the armed guards who surround them? It would prove that they really believe that being safe is possible without the ability to defend themselves.

Of course they have a choice.When you enable addicts with excuses, then you make them slaves.

That was written over 200 years ago

And has been the longest lasting constitutional govt in spite of over 200 years of attempts to destroy the Constitution.How long has the Singapore govt lasted? How long will it last and why?The second amendment is to protect the liberty of the individual from the state. The Singapore govt infringes upon the liberty of the individual on many levels.

"It should come as no surprise that the Communist Party USA is on board with President Obama's plan to attack Americans' right to keep and bear arms as a means to "end gun violence." A cardinal feature of communist regimes, like all dictatorships, is the prohibition of private ownership of arms, creating a monopoly of force in the hands of the State."http://www.infowa...un-grab/

How will Obama explain away his communist friends?

Of course Obama demonstrated his dictatorial tendencies last year by violating the Constitution."Court rules Obama's appointments unconstitutional"http://www.reuter...20130126

This article really has brought out the usual assortment of Fascists, Neo Nazis, The Religious Right and the wingnut gun loving organisation the US. It's amusing to read their incoherent rants.

It looks like gun control is a threat to the gun totin' Right's prowess. The gun being a sexual substitute for their less than adequate penis size. It's removal or control is a threat to the Stupid White Male's sexual prowess.

The Stupid White Male is a dying species that will render all gun associations, The Right and the Republicans to dustbin of history. You (USA) are becoming more racially diversified, more liberal. more tolerant, more intellectual whether you like it or not.

BTW, here in Australia it is safer with strict gun controls. Heavier fines for non-compliance, jail if required. All firearms must be registered and locked in a secure cabinet and ammo in a separate locked cabinet. All users must be licenced and if it is not already, there are going to mental fitness tests.

I'm loving the massive circle-jerk of anti-gun rhetoric in here. My favorite was the first comment:

" Not surprisingly, you could substitute the words "gun advocates" with "climate warming deniers" and the statement would be just as true."

Funny, because the "climate warming deniers" only respond with rhetoric and yelling about conspiracies and emotional arguments because they don't understand the issue, no different from evolution-deniers.

Yet, it's the pro-gun types are the ones who have statistics, studies, and facts backing their side up. All the anti-gun types can do is cry about some dead kids like we're all supposed to just throw away our freedoms when the victims are rich, white, and dead enough to warrant it. It worked so good after 9/11.

You'd think the anti-gun side, who like to think they're intellectuals, would be able to read a pie chart

BTW, here in Australia it is safer with strict gun controls. Heavier fines for non-compliance, jail if required. All firearms must be registered and locked in a secure cabinet and ammo in a separate locked cabinet. All users must be licenced and if it is not already, there are going to mental fitness tests.

Australia also doesn't have inner city ghettos. And it has a rape rate three times higher than the US too. And despite all you've done, people are STILL getting killed with guns. Why is that?

Most of the anti-gun types can't even tell you which end of a gun the bullet comes out. I refuse to substantiate any argument with one side who deliberately chooses to NOT understand the issue they think is important enough to ban.

More frequent cyber-attacks allow the government to isolate internet and cell networks for 'security'.

Anti-terrorist measures allow police to 'disappear' people.

Oil dries up causing rationing, plastics soar in price.

-

I'm not going to give up my children's, or my children's children's right to protect themselves or to change their fate so I can look 'better' in the eyes of countries like Australia. I don't care. The very worst things that can happen because we don't disarm is the odd murder. The very worst things that can happen because we DO disarm, as history has proven, are far, far worse.

"Anti-gun activist arrested after firearm found at homeThe State Journal-Register Online - Springfield, Illinois By JASON PISCIA STAFF WRITER 1 March 2005 A Springfield woman who began lobbying against gun violence after her son was shot to death in 2002 was arrested last week when police allegedly found an illegal gun and drugs in her home.

Annette "Flirty" Stevens, however, said Monday she's innocent, and the arrest is an attempt by police to get her to give up information about unsolved crime in the city.

The handgun, which had a scratched-off serial number, and drugs allegedly were discovered Friday morning inside Stevens' home..."

"A bereaved mother [Barbara Graham] whose son was shot and killed nearly two years ago — and who spoke out against gun violence and memorialized shooting victims at the "Million Mom March" rally in Washington, D.C., last Mother's Day — was herself convicted of shooting a man she wrongly believed was her son's killer."

"[Annette "Flirty" Stevens] pled guilty to a felony drug charge and was sentenced to 60 days in the Sangamon County Jail and three years probation. Charges of possession of an illegal gun that had its serial number ground off, and ammunition were dropped in a plea agreement."

"State Senator Donne Trotter... was arrested Wednesday at O'Hare, where security discovered a gun in Trotter's carry-on bag. Ironically, he is a co-sponsor of Governor Pat Quinn's latest bill banning "assault weapons" and large capacity clips."

"A 36-year-old man who had broken with his girlfriend sent her threatening messages, including to destroy all her future relationships, to cut off the head of her cat and post it through the letter-box, and 'do over' her father. On two occasions he assaulted her; on the second, he dragged her by her hair into the street, in public, where he got her to the ground, hit her on both sides of the head and kicked her several times in the abdomen. He was stopped only by the intervention of a neighbour.""His lawyer claimed that he was deeply remorseful; that he recognised that his behaviour was 'inappropriate'; that he did not intend to harm the woman (a therapeutic kicking, then);"http://www.specta...on-game/If the girlfriend had been armed, she would not likely be assaulted a second time, and maybe not even the first time.

"­It's no wonder that two-thirds of adult smokers who wish they could quit say they aren't able to. It shouldn't be a surprise that only one in 10 smokers can kick the habit. A startling 50 percent of people who have surgery for lung cancer recover and reach for the pack again [source: FDA]."

Or to quote W.C. Fields: "It's easy to swear off drinking. I've done it a thousand times."

It was interesting watching a BBC show called Whitechapel. Most police can't carry weapons and the police were constantly harassed and intimidated throughout the series by the criminals, who WERE armed.Also, a movie called Blitz the police were being assassinated with a firearm, and a hammer, but the police had no way to defend themselves.

Wow, this article reeks of intellectual dishonesty. I didn't want to chime in on this but when I see bad logic being passed around as fact by someone with a doctorate degree I feel that I need to step in.

The author of this article skillfully leveraged the suggestion that Australia's gun laws were responsible for their decrease in gun crime during the 1990s to add credibility to his viewpoint that gun control works. He also lightly touched upon, but skillfully downplayed, the suggestion that Australia's decrease in gun crime during the 1990s may have been due to something else.

The sharp decrease in gun crime in Australia in the mid 1990s is due to the world economy improving. The same trends were seen in the USA, Britain, and elsewhere. Along with gun homicides, other crime sharply decreased as well. If you were to graph out the crime rates of various countries and overlay them you'd see all developed nations following the same major trends.

Guns are not required for killing. Knives, Molotov cocktails, IEDs, poisons, etc. The list of ways to kill is potentially endless. A person hell bent on killing you can usually find a way to do it. Getting rid of guns is not the answer. They are nothing but tools. It is murderers that are to blame for murders, not the tools they use.

Placing blame on guns is irresponsible. Blaming the tools takes the blame from those responsible.

Banning guns would not take weapons from the criminals and gangsters but from regular people, anyways. Criminals do not carry registered weapons, regular people do. Banning guns would in fact make law abiding citizens ever so slightly more vulnerable to crime. In rare cases an armed citizen is able to defend himself from an armed assailant.

Banning guns does not address the problem. Guns do not walk around committing crimes, criminals do. Outlawing guns will not take them out of the hands of those willing to break the law.

Do not fool yourself into thinking that places like Canada are free of crimes involving guns. Shootings happen in Canada all the time despite the gun laws that are in place. The incidence of gun crimes is not dependent on the gun to human ratio. Crime is connected to quality of life. If quality of life is high (for the whole population) the incidence of crime is low, regardless of the number of guns present. If the quality of life is low (high level of poverty), then crime incidence is high.

Crime is a result of living conditions present. If there is a lack of necessities people resort to extreme measures. Nutrition, healthcare (especially psychological), shelter, etc. These are necessities of life. If these are not met, and socially dealt with for those in poverty, the impoverished are likely to resort to crime.

There are real issues to deal with here. The rate of crime signifies that basic needs are not being met, instate social programs and the crime problem will resolve itself.

Mentally sick people are committing atrocious acts all over the US. School shootings? Killing innocent children? These are absolutely sickening acts being committed.

Instead of addressing the problems present: poverty, mental health, the solution is to attack the tools these poor and mentally sick individuals use.

Unless the true problems are directly addressed, the only thing that'll change is that the headlines will read:A school explosion kills innocent children,instead of:Shooting takes lives of innocent children.

Fix the problems by providing better healthcare for those that need it, before it is too late to act. Provide welfare for those that can't make ends meet. These are your fixes, address the social problems.

Guns are not the root of the problem. A happy, mentally stable society where everyones basic needs are met will not have a crime problem.

I'm sorry if I burst anyones bubble here, but I'm going to get real for a moment. If you are driving around in a new Mercedes living in a million dollar home, you cannot realistically expect that the man who cannot afford to feed his family could not potentially be looking to steal from you. I'm not condoning such behavior, or saying that every poor man would commit a crime, I'm just saying that there is a real possibility of the have-nots forcefully taking from those that have. This is just reality.

So for all of those who say cut the social programs, I don't work to take care of bums, note that social programs not only work for those requiring assistance but they also protect you from being victimized.

If you want to live in a healthy, safe society, you need to help out in making it such. You can either pay to help out those in need, or pay the consequences.

Yeah suresure. But statistics rule. Most people cannot quit this misery, especially when their favorite stars are selling it. And this makes it a very useful tool of subservience.

Speaking of addiction:

"More than $114 billion exited the biggest U.S. banks this month, and nobody's quite sure why.The Federal Reserve releases data on the assets and liabilities of commercial banks every Friday. The most current figures, covering the first full week of 2013, show the largest one-week withdrawals since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Even when seasonally adjusted, the level drops to $52.8 billion—still the third-highest amount on record, and one for which bank experts and analysts were reluctant to give a definitive explanation."

-What's going on ryggy? Does the elite know something that we plebes don't? I say earthquake. Old soviet nukes on US soil perhaps? Israel on the move? Cyberwar?

You can either pay to help out those in need, or pay the consequences.

There were many such systems in place before the govt monopolized welfare to buy votes.They were called mutual aid societies and there were, and are churches and religious organizations like the Salvation Army that helps those in need. But the charities really try to help the needy get OUT of poverty. Govts have no incentive to do so. What welfare bureau wants to put themselves out of work: they lose govt employees who would vote for 'liberals' and they would lose the dependent class who vote for 'liberals'.The scheme eventually collapses when the govt runs out of other peoples wealth to plunder.

There were many such systems in place before the govt monopolized welfare to buy votes.They were called mutual aid societies and there were, and are churches and religious organizations like the Salvation Army that helps those in need. But the charities really try to help the needy get OUT of poverty. Govts have no incentive to do so. What welfare bureau wants to put themselves out of work: they lose govt employees who would vote for 'liberals' and they would lose the dependent class who vote for 'liberals'.The scheme eventually collapses when the govt runs out of other peoples wealth to plunder.

Bullshit. I would call this a conspiracy theory if I didn't very well know that you know otherwise. You are Intentionally being deceptive. You know very well that the govt does not need to work at keeping those: a) unable, or b) unwilling to work from working. In fact, social assistance requires able bodies to actively search for employment. You're outright lying.

Bullshit. I would call this a conspiracy theory if I didn't very well know that you know otherwise. You are Intentionally being deceptive. You know very well that the govt does not need to work at keeping those: a) unable, or b) unwilling to work from working. In fact, social assistance requires able bodies to actively search for employment. You're outright lying.

What was the goal of the 'War on Poverty'? It has NOT reduced the percentage in poverty and we now have MORE people on welfare than ever before.The Dept of Agriculture's budget is mostly for welfare, NOT agriculture. It seems the DoAg needed to branch out to 'stay in business'.A feeble attempt was made at the federal level, forced upon Clinton by Gingrich, to reform welfare. Now, after Obama destroyed economic growth, workfare is dying and federal welfare is expanding.

What was the goal of the 'War on Poverty'? It has NOT reduced the percentage in poverty and we now have MORE people on welfare than ever before.

If you're talking about welfare, this was part of a century-long demographic Campaign aimed at distributing freed slaves around the country so they could be integrated safely, and then growing their numbers to meet certain Goals.

The real danger was that freed slaves would congregate in southern cities, driving whites out, and then gradually establishing their own culture, language, and govt. The US would then be faced with a genuine civil war as this region strove to form it's own country.

Instead, blacks were enticed north by job openings vacated by battlefield casualties, and forced to move by state-sponsored harassment via the KKK. Their communities were kept small and widely dispersed.

When this Phase was complete, their growth was subsidized and they were encouraged to integrate. This happened in Rome 2 millennia ago.

Everyone screams about their guns getting taken away, but seriously, is that gun going to really protect you from the government. You have a AR-15, the government has the apache helicopter and the predator missle. If they want in, they're coming in.

The real uproar should be to restore the Bill of Rights to as they were before 9/11, and repeal the Patriot Act. That is where the protections from the government reside that the founding fathers designed.

The second admendment has more to do with maintaining a militia (the army at the time) than anything else, though it does provide the right to some form of gun ownership.

Everyone screams about their guns getting taken away, but seriously, is that gun going to really protect you from the government. You have a AR-15, the government has the apache helicopter and the predator missle. If they want in, they're coming in.

If you are in the mood for something really disturbing but not all that implausible, I suggest the Turner Diarieshttp://en.wikiped..._Diaries

Anyone that claims the number of deaths is independent of the clip size he was using is lying.

Large clips are essential when defending against gang-related home invasions and looting during riots and natural disasters. You know, when your govt is occupied elsewhere protecting its own ass. Suspension of order can and does happen fairly frequently. Only hicap assault weapons in the hands of groups of citizens can hope to restore order when police are unavailable.

@ EverythingsJustaTheo,Are you saying that a sniper cannot take out as many targets as a submachine gunner because a submachine gun holds more ammo in a clip?

You're just a media whore.

Different tactics is all that is required. Staying in a hidden spot allows the sniper ample time to reload and continue the assault from a far, the submachine gunner only has an advantage in close combat situations.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. The soldiers/police side with whoever signs their pay checks (the government).

Also, "fellow traveler" really shows your age, Jon.

Ruby Ridge and Waco inspired more individuals to join the NRA and motivated extreme responses like OKC, which feeds into the govt paranoia for internal enemies. In '93, Clinton was more worried about 'right wing' gun owners than Muslim terrorists who murdered hundreds of US citizens during his watch. The children at Waco burned to death for it

CHICAGO (CBS) — A school shooting drill planned for tomorrow in the far northwestern suburbs has many parents upset.According to a letter from Cary-Grove High School principal Jay Sargeant, there will be a code red drill at the school on Wednesday.

It will include somebody shooting blanks from a gun in the hallway "in an effort to provide our teachers and students some familiarity with the sound of gunfire."

The 'Coward Herr Vendicar' has childishly changed his personal login profile, slightly, to avoid people following his name back through past comments..... Anyone interested in his cowardly death threats towards posters in the past comments section, follow them through the link below.

I am pointing out facts.ATF agents tried to entrap a citizen, Randy Weaver in ID on a weapons charge. They even went so far as to lie about his court date so he missed it and eventually sent in a SOG group that started a siege resulting in the death of a US Marshal and the deaths of Weaver's wife and child. All because Weaver wanted to be left alone. http://www.trutv..../12.htmlNot long after this Clinton sic'd Janet Reno on a group that wanted to be left alone by the govt in Waco. The FBI burned them out.Is there any surprise some may have believed the ATF and FBI to be rouge agencies more concerned about threatening US citizens who committed no crimes. Especially when Muslim terrorists were bombing US military and US embassies with no effective response from Clinton.I don't excuse the OKC bombing, but 'liberals' excuse Ruby Ridge, Waco and the terrorist attacks.

@ EverythingsJustaTheo,Are you saying that a sniper cannot take out as many targets as a submachine gunner because a submachine gun holds more ammo in a clip?

You're just a media whore.

Different tactics is all that is required. Staying in a hidden spot allows the sniper ample time to reload and continue the assault from a far, the submachine gunner only has an advantage in close combat situations.

Wow! You can come up with one example where the clip size doesn't matter. That doesn't mean that it is not a factor in a lot of other situations.

So just because every possible situation cannot be avoided, we shouldn't try at all?

Sniper rifles are something that should be controlled, along with other assault rifles. No practical application outside of the military.

Sniper rifles are something that should be controlled, along with other assault rifles. No practical application outside of the military.

Take your regular 30-06 hunting rifle and equip it with a telescopic sight. What do you have? A rifle that can take out a dear from a 1000 yards with a single placed shot.

So just because every possible situation cannot be avoided, we shouldn't try at all?

To the contrary. We should definitely stop senseless killing. Gun control is not the answer. The problem is that people choose to kill, not that they use guns to do it. The government needs to focus on spotting possible threats before bad things happen. Employers, teachers, etc. need to report individuals that pose a potential threat to government agencies. Yearly psych evaluations should be mandatory and free. Social assistance should be provided to impoverished. Etc.

Friends say a man in his early 20s was picking up one more of their group to go skating, when his GPS took him to the wrong house and the home-owner allegedly shot him dead, later saying he feared a home invasion.

There was a guy in a nearby town that was drunk and thought he was knocking on the window of his girlfriend's house. Turned out to be the neighbor's. The neighbor shot him dead. Knocking on somebody's window sure warrants a headful of lead. The shooter was not prosecuted.

There was a guy in a nearby town that was drunk and thought he was knocking on the window of his girlfriend's house. Turned out to be the neighbor's. The neighbor shot him dead. Knocking on somebody's window sure warrants a headful of lead. The shooter was not prosecuted.

Under the influence of alcohol OR drugs is no excuse for being stupid. What if the drunk jumped into a car and killed himself or others? Is it the drunk's fault?

Weaver is dead because he was a criminal who put up armed resistance to an arrest warrant, and murdered a police officer.

And his wife was shot dead with a baby in her arms by snipers while standing on her back porch because -?

Randy Weaver is still alive."The two men were arrested and tried for the murder of William Degan, but when the trial revealed what appeared to be an ATF entrapment plan and the FBI's botched attack on the household, the two men were acquitted. In 1995, "http://www.biogra...8?page=2

There was a guy in a nearby town that was drunk and thought he was knocking on the window of his girlfriend's house. Turned out to be the neighbor's. The neighbor shot him dead. Knocking on somebody's window sure warrants a headful of lead. The shooter was not prosecuted.

Link frank? Is this not the story where a naked blind-drunk guy stumbled out into the back yard to take a whizz and mistook the neighbors house for his own? Idiot got hisself shot for his reckless behavior.http://articles.m...estimony

"In this Clinton Crime Randy Weaver was sought out by the FBI over a trumped up charge: his shotgun was 1/4" under the prescribed barrel length. The FBI first shot his dog. They seem to like to do that, they did the same thing to pet dogs at Waco too. Ron's wife, Vicky heard the commotion outdoors and opened the door while holding her baby in her arms. The sharpshooter, Lon Horiuchi, holding one of the most accurate scoped sniper rifles made shot her right in the head. Janet Reno's "Justice" Dept. refused to prosecute Horiuchi for the murder. Indeed, later she gave him a medal for bravery for hiding in brush above the quiet mountain cabin 100 yards away."

I'm not providing a link because I don't want the fascists here to have any idea where I live. It isn't the same story you mentioned. It's no different than what I said. Drunk guy knocks on girlfriend's neighbor's window thinking it was the girlfriend's house. Drunk guy gets his head blown off.

I also don't think pissing on my lawn is a good reason to shoot someone.

"Florida Police Pound On Wrong Door Looking For Suspect Without Identifying Themselves . . . Then Shoot And Kill Innocent Man Who Answers The Door With Weapon "http://jonathantu...-weapon/"Officers were called to a home on Lambert Drive at 3:46 a.m. after multiple suspects broke into the residence. The suspects demanded money from the residents at gunpoint, police said. "http://www.wfsb.c...-norwich

Northern Nevada investigators say the man who hijacked a state trooper's cruiser and used the patrolman's shotgun to carjack another car before allegedly committing suicide appears to have died from a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest.

I'm not providing a link because I don't want the fascists here to have any idea where I live. It isn't the same story you mentioned. It's no different than what I said. Drunk guy knocks on girlfriend's neighbor's window thinking it was the girlfriend's house. Drunk guy gets his head blown off.

I also don't think pissing on my lawn is a good reason to shoot someone.

Frankie doesn't say anything about the shooter or why he/she wasn't arrested. Could it be the shooter was a woman who had been assaulted or an elderly individual who has been robbed or assaulted or that the neighborhood is had a rash of breaking and assaults.

I'm not a fascist so you don't have to worry about me having that information. Hell, I won't even shoot you if you trespass on my property!

You're not good at disinformation either. You're name is Jon Swenson. You're about 80. You live in or around Chelmsford, MA. You've said and done things that back all of that up.

Your previous two names were Marjon and BigJon or Big_Jon, something like that. Both contained "Jon". You've mentioned the Chelmsford area. Your politics and use of phrases like "fellow traveller" suggests you were of political awareness during McCarthyism. This coupled with others' research all point in the same direction.

It doesn't matter if you believe me. You've all ready stated knocking on someone's window is cause for shooting them.

Besides, if you didn't believe me, why were you trying to feebly poke holes in the story when you could have just denied it outright?

I'm not a fascist so you don't have to worry about me having that information. Hell, I won't even shoot you if you trespass on my property! You're not good at disinformation either. You're name is Jon Swenson. You're about 80. You live in or around Chelmsford, MA. You've said and done things that back all of that up.

Of course you are fascist, you accused yourself of being fascist by threatening me as many others here have done.Please, if you are SOOO sure you know who I am, stop by and introduce yourself.No guts, no glory, Frankie, or are you SH?

@VendicarEPopulation(USA): 314,000,000Crimes(2011): 10,000,000Crimes/day: 27,400Crimes/hour: 1,145During the 1 hour period you were out on your walk (assuming avg walking speed of 5km/h), the chance of you being a victim of a crime was 1,145/314,000,000 or 1 in 274,236 (0.00036% probability). To put it in perspective, winning the lottery is 1 in 100,000,000 chance (0.000001% probability).

Statistically speaking, you returning from your walk without being victimized is not unusual. But people do get lucky and win the lottery. Some get unlucky and become victims of crimes.

Living in reality requires planning even for the unlikely scenarios. It's better to have a way of protecting yourself and not needing it, rather than not having it and needing it. Wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps not but following the resident inside and into the basement probably was.

But that didn't happen?

I'm not saying this one instance proves your side wrong. I'm just amazed that you think there has to be more to the story than that. Why do you have to deny EVERY piece of evidence you don't like? I don't deny that guns sometimes allow people to protect themselves, because it doesn't destroy my point.

I'm not nearly as radical as I come across in these topics. I think fair studies should be done to compare gun laws across the globe controlling for as many variables as possible, then using that information to make smart gun policy. Philosophy has no place in policy when we have the ability to study the actual real world consequences of such policies. This isn't 1789. We have computers, advanced statistics, etc. This problem can be solved fairly for all sides. Well, the sides that aren't in la-la-land.

Roughly 1 in 10 of the 10,000,000 crimes (in 2011) were of a violent nature. 1,200,000 violent crimes in USA (in 2011). 137 violent crimes happen every hour. There was a 0.000044% chance of you being a victim of a violent crime during your walk. It is easy for some to be ignorant of reality (the: it's not gonna happen to me, mentality). But these things do happen.

Note: these are not exact but rough figures not factoring many variables involved. I could get more precise but these are sufficiently precise to illustrate the point.

You didn't become a victim during your walk because it is statistically improbable. If you had been one of the unlucky ones, maybe you wouldn't be around to post anything ever again. If you had survived the attack, you would definitely get a new perspective. I'm not saying you'd personally change your tune on carrying a gun for self protection, but the odds would be greater of becoming: for carrying a gun, after being victimized vs before being victimized.

Philosophy has no place in policy when we have the ability to study the actual real world consequences of such policies.

Of course philosophy has a place in policy.That fundamental philosophy is enshrined in the US Declaration of Independence: all humans are created equal with inherent, unalienable rights to life, liberty and property.The present socialist philosophy is driving policy to the detriment of the individual.

This is not solvable by imposing stricter gun laws. Most armed criminals carry unregistered weapons bought on the black market anyways. Gun laws will take guns from law abiding citizens. This will increase the safety of criminals. Do not allow the blind to lead you. Statistics can be misleading if there is no reason and logic applied. Assuming gun crimes will go down when there is less guns present is just plain ignorant of involving variables. This assumes the decrease percentage of guns will be equal for criminals and non-criminals. The truth is that stricter gun laws will cause a decrease in gun carrying non-criminals, while the criminals will illegally keep (and obtain) weapons.

How is this not apparent?

The problem is not that gun laws are not strict enough. The problem is that people are committing crimes. The solution is to get the quality of life up, so the incidence of crime will go down. Happy, mentally sane, people, whose needs are met are unlikely to commit evil acts.

This is not solvable by imposing stricter gun laws. Most armed criminals carry unregistered weapons bought on the black market anyways.

The black market exists because you can drive 10 miles out of the restricted area, buy the gun, and bring it back. Inadequate regulation does not disprove the efficacy of regulation. And just so we are clear, you do realize a formerly "law abiding gun owner" that refuses to follow new laws is not longer a "law abiding gun owner". I hear people in my everyday life saying they won't abide by new regulations. Well guess what, they then become criminals themselves.

The argument is very apparently bogus. Apply the logic to ANY other crime.

BTW, you need to dig a little to understand why 'happiness' was used in the Declaration. It encompasses property and more.

I'm well versed on the Founders' philosophies. I have read Locke's Second Treatise on Government in its entirety. Have you?

I hear people in my everyday life saying they won't abide by new regulations.

'Liberals' think 'civil disobedience' is great and if they are in power and don't like a law, they don't enforce the law. The rule of law requires a standard and that standard is the Constitution.Bastiat notes in The Law the when laws violate the life, liberty and property of the individual, they are not legitimate and must be opposed. The only legitimate laws are those the PROTECT every individual's property rights.

Kron, do you advocate wearing a faraday cage everytime you go outside because you might get struck by lightning? Do you even have a lightning rod on your roof?!?!

1 in 285,000 people are hit by lightning in the USA every year.1 in 262 people are the victim of a violent crime every year.Wearing a faraday cage while walking around would cause more injuries than not wearing one. You're just throwing stupid arguments around to derail the conversation.

@FrankHerbert2The gun black market exists because there is a demand for untraceable weapons. The weapons sold have many origins. Some were at one point registered weapons whose serial numbers were removed and that have been resold. Some come on boats, submarines, planes, shipping crates, etc. from ALL ACROSS THE WORLD.

As long as there is a demand for weapons, they will be supplied.

The way to reduce the demand is to make lives satisfactory for those who find them to not be.

And just so we are clear, you do realize a formerly "law abiding gun owner" that refuses to follow new laws is not longer a "law abiding gun owner".

I've never implied otherwise. Are you having a discussion with me or arguing with yourself. My whole point was that outlawing guns will cause a decrease in ownership among the "law abiding citizens" while "non-law abiding citizens (aka criminals)" will have no decrease in ownership.

The way to reduce the demand is to make lives satisfactory for those who find them to not be.

The way to reduce demand of illegal firearms is to have more legal firearms owners who can defend themselves.Criminals, like socialists, are cowards. When they face a threat to their life from an armed individual defending their inherent right to life, they usually run away.

The way to reduce the demand is to make lives satisfactory for those who find them to not be.

This is reasonable.

The way to reduce demand of illegal firearms is to have more legal firearms owners who can defend themselves.Criminals, like socialists, are cowards. When they face a threat to their life from an armed individual defending their inherent right to life, they usually run away.

This is not.

As long as there is a demand for ________, they will be supplied.

Kron, fill in the blank with anything but weapons and see if you still agree with lifting the laws that regulate _____.

I've never implied otherwise. Are you having a discussion with me or arguing with yourself. My whole point was that [outlawing guns] will cause a decrease in ownership among the "law abiding citizens" while "non-law abiding citizens (aka criminals)" will have no decrease in ownership.

Should be:

I've never implied otherwise. Are you having a discussion with me or arguing with yourself. My whole point was that [stricter gun laws] will cause a decrease in ownership among the "law abiding citizens" while "non-law abiding citizens (aka criminals)" will have no decrease in ownership.

Strict drug laws have thus far failed at stopping recreational drug use. The drug war is a failure. The most effective way of stopping recreational drug use is medical treatment (psychological for mental dependence and physiological for physical dependence). This stops the demand for drugs.

If you want to stop drug use you need to address the cause, the dependence, the addiction.

There is no other fix for the drug problem. Law does not cure addiction. It does not stop the demand. As long as a demand is present, the supply will be.

The war on drugs will never be won. The supply will always slip through. Criminals even factor the percentage of drugs that will be ceased, so they send extra in order to meet the demand.

Illegal drug use will stop when addicts are treated, when there is no longer a demand, there will be no more use.

Then again, there are many recreational drug users who are insusceptible to addiction. They are strong willed enough that they never become dependent. Their drug use is 100% controllable. They make up a very small percentage of the population but we cannot just forget about them.

Recreational drug use is only dangerous for the addictive personality types (which happens to be the majority of the population).

Treatment is the only viable action, as it fixes recreational users that become dependent (the addicts, the ill), while the recreational users which don't become dependent (aren't sick) can continue to live their lives responsibly.

Drugs are bad for most users because they are addictive, but not everyone is susceptible to addiction (strong willed, responsible people, are able to use drugs in a responsible recreational setting).

This is a touchy subject Most 'addicts' will pretend to be in control of their drug use, yet only a small percentage of 'recreational' users actually are

ME: "The way to reduce demand of illegal firearms is to have more legal firearms owners who can defend themselves.Criminals, like socialists, are cowards. When they face a threat to their life from an armed individual defending their inherent right to life, they usually run away."

Frankie: This is not. (reasonable)

Data and common sense shows this IS reasonable for the individual, but maybe not for the socialist philosophy with the motive of state control of individuals.

If ONLY the govt is allowed to protect the life of the individual, the individual is a slave of the state.

"The shooter was disarmed and taken into custody minutes after the incident by an off-duty Atlanta police officer, Turner said. He said the off-duty police officer, who was armed, works at Price Middle School as a so-called resource officer, providing security."

-LOTS of schools have armed guards on-site. This one was there immediately. Why would Obama be against such an obvious benefit?

-This totally disregards the FACT that assaults are up because fewer people are able to use firearms to protect themselves. The authors adopt an air of cool objectivity in order to imply that they are a rational voice against fanatic gun owners. This is called 'spin and deception'.

-------------------------------------------------

The problem with % based stats is they mean nothing. If you have 1 home invasion in 2012 and you have 2 in 2013, a insignificant increase, it still shows up as a 100% increase. What does 20% represent. 4 Victims, 2 Victims more then the previous year 8? No hard numbers are posted to how many numbers that % increase really means. So no its not bull.